ASK Musings

No matter where you go, there you are.

Non-Fiction Archive

Wednesday

17

July 2013

0

COMMENTS

Gulp

Written by , Posted in Reviews

Gulp

I love Ms. Roach’s books. Stiff is a particular favorite of mine. Her writing style reads more like a fun conversation than an informative book, even though her books are inevitably also filled with interesting tidbits.

This book was no exception. Following the life of food as it passes through, well, us, Gulp spends each chapter focused on a different bodily function, some spreading across multiple chapters. Each chapter has some interesting history and interviews with folks doing research you probably didn’t know was going on. It is fun, entertaining, and an easy read.

Really the only wish I had is one that’s more for my benefit than others. I wish the book had started out with a basic reminder of the all the functions along the way. What does the small intestine do again? Is the large intestine different from the colon? Yes, I learned this in biology (I think), but that was a couple of decades ago, and I kind of assumed a book about digestion would provide me with that reminder. Additionally, while each chapter is definitely interesting on its own, there isn’t the connection one might expect in this type of book. It seems to lend itself well to a piece by piece narrative, but she only follows that in the most general terms.

Like Stiff, there are some who will be turned off by the realistic and blunt nature of the book. There’s a lot of talk of body fluids, smells and other things that people usually don’t discuss in ‘polite company.’ But if that doesn’t bother you, and like fun facts and interesting bits of trivia, then I suggest adding it to your list.

Saturday

29

June 2013

0

COMMENTS

Elements of Style

Written by , Posted in Reviews

elements of style

That’s right. For my 26th book (halfway there!) I decided to finally read through this classic guide to writing. The copy I picked up is a special illustrated edition, which made me feel as though I were reading something  more elaborate than small grammar and style textbook.

This book has been around for years, with multiple versions and editions dating back to the 1920s. It is a slim book containing six chapters that have been finely edited to provide the reader with just enough guidance to improve his or her writing without weighing him or her down with hundreds of individual rules.  It covers grammar, composition, form, expressions, style rules and spelling.

You may be asking yourself why someone might choose to read this book cover to cover, as opposed to perhaps purchasing it to keep as a reference. I will certainly keep it as a reference, but I found that by reading through it I received a much-needed refresher on grammar rules (although Mr. Strunk and I disagree on what is commonly known as the ‘Oxford Comma’ – he uses it and I don’t). I also appreciated the composition and style suggestions. As I have been writing more this year – both for the Cannonball Read and for my own blog – I appreciate suggestions to help improve my writing. Mr. Strunk and Mr. White appreciate brevity and the willingness to take a stance on a topic when writing and I can benefit from incorporating both suggestions more often.

The most relevant lesson for me was woven throughout the book and mentioned in different areas: the lesson of clarity. Why try to sound fancy when fewer words would be clearer to the reader? Keeping both by message and the reader in mind should help me to improve my writing over time.

I recommend that you purchase a copy to use if you write often as well as if you write rarely; in both instances it is likely that you could benefit from style refresher.

Friday

28

June 2013

0

COMMENTS

Madame Chic

Written by , Posted in Reviews

madame chic

I really enjoy fancy etiquette and style books. Whenever I go to Anthropologie, I end up with a book instead of clothing. I like the feel of the glossy thick stock, the look of the cute pen illustrations, and the idea that perhaps at some point I’ll be able to embrace some of the suggestions in these books. Unfortunately, my most recent read in this genre, picked up at the aforementioned store, was disappointing/

I have read enough of this genre to recognize that is challenging to come up with new ways to discuss French living and how to incorporate French culture into life in the US. Still I was expecting something a little more. Yes, it is a style book, but I was hoping for more substance.

The book (based Ms. Scott’s blog) includes twenty chapters, each focused on a lesson she learned from her host family when she spent a year in Paris about a decade ago. I know. A year does not make her an expert. However, as someone who also lived abroad for a year, I do recognize that the culture shock can leave a big impression, and what is out of the norm for a short period of time can stick with one long after that time has passed. So I’m not willing to write her off based on that.

There really isn’t anything new here, but there were good reminders. The concept of the ten item wardrobe is one that I’ve seen repeatedly and am actively working towards. (Note: those ten items do not include things like underwear or outerwear, so it isn’t that big of a deal). Ms. Scott also discussed the tidbits made famous by “French Women Don’t Get Fat” (yes, I’ve read that too), like not snacking and instead of working out, incorporating more exercise into daily life. Again, not horrible advice – unless you love the gym, which she acknowledges – but not earth-shattering. Imagine similar chapters about enjoying life, seeing the arts, etc.

It’s all fine, but it’s also all through the lens of someone who was not working and who had access to apparently unlimited funds. Because the author learned these ‘lessons’ while a student, she has nothing to say about work culture. It’s great that she doesn’t decide to simply make something up, but there is something lacking for those of us who spend a very large chunk of our time at work. By not mentioning the realities of outside work when discussing the importance of making a four-course dinner for the family every night, the author chooses to ignore the challenges of managing a home in which two adults work.

This brings me to gender roles. Much of the book’s content seems to lean heavily on certain ideas of what women are like and what women do. There are some basic attempts at seeming progressive, but overall this book suggests that style is for the woman who works at MOST part time, and that women have certain duties to their family that apparently don’t apply to men. Or to the men she encountered in France, at least. It would have been nice to see that addressed. She also spends time on her version of femininity, even expressing approval of street harassment. Not exactly a feminist position.

And then there is the author’s slight attempt at addressing economic disparity. Look, clearly I don’t pick up a book like this and expect that the author is going to focus exclusively on living the good life while working two jobs for minimum wage (although I would totally read that book). But. The ‘lessons’ the author learned were clearly from people with a TON of money, and that seems to color all of her observations. Additionally, she wrote one paragraph that discussed sustainability (sort of – she mentioned organic and local foods). In all of her talk of quality goods and clothing, she didn’t mention that one should consider things like the treatment of labor or the impact of certain fabrics on the environment. Would that have put a damper on the book? No, not if done well.

If you are interested in learning about life in Paris, I recommend finding another book – Bringing up Bebe was quite enjoyable for me (and I’m not having children). If you are interested in improving your style and quality of life, I also recommend finding another book. You can find better.

Monday

24

June 2013

0

COMMENTS

Bad Science

Written by , Posted in Politics, Reviews

Bad Science book cover

You guys. YOU GUYS. This book is amazing. I started reading it Sunday morning. Now it’s Monday night, and I’ve finished all 258 pages, and I’m sad that it’s over.

I found out about this book thanks to Cannonball Reader Mei-Lu, and picked up a copy on that same trip to Powell’s that netted me an okay and a good book (so far – more reviews to come). As a background, I do have a bout two years’ worth of graduate-level statistics training, and took a philosophy of science class that focused exclusively on evidence, objectivity, and how that all interacts with policy, and I still found things in this book that I’d not been exposed to before. Frankly, I’d love to see it be required reading for freshman in college (or seniors in high school) to help them become better informed citizens.

The book is extraordinarily well written. At times Dr. Goldacre sounds a bit arrogant, but that’s really only relevant if that’s something you find it difficult to get past, which in this case I did not. What is more relevant is that he has great information, strong examples to illustrate his points, and an overall way with words that makes this book feel more like an outstanding novel than a science non-fiction. It reminded me a bit of Mary Roach’s works, which makes sense – she even provided a supporting blurb for the back of the copy I purchased.

The biggest point I took away from this reading is frustration that the people we expect to be providing good information to us often aren’t. And that isn’t just the scientists (or I guess “scientists”) engaging in all manner of deceit to bend data their way; it’s the newspapers and members of the media who either choose not to engage in serious examination of the data and papers themselves, or frame the issue in ways not supported by the evidence. Not everyone has time to read through all the supporting evidence on an issue; that’s why we have the scientists, and the science reporters (or sadly, the general reporters tasked with reporting on science issues). When one or more of those folks aren’t providing good information, or willing to do their jobs, those of us who rely on them are taking a huge gamble.

Please check this book out. I’m so glad I purchased a hard copy of it; I can tell I’ll be re-reading it and referencing it a lot in the future.

Sunday

23

June 2013

0

COMMENTS

Green Washed

Written by , Posted in Reviews

GreenWashed

This is another book I picked up at Powell’s knowing nothing about it because it looked interesting. Lucky for me, this one was both a quick read (even at 200 pages with many references to scientific studies) and well-organized. I feared it would make me feel a bit hopeless and pessimistic, especially given the way the author chose to approach the topic (more below), but in the end it left me feeling like I did have the tools to make a positive difference in my impact on the environment.

The basic premise of Ms. Pierre-Louis’s book is that saving and protecting our environment isn’t a matter of plastic water bottles vs. reusable water bottles; it’s about drinking from the tap in a glass. Explored through a series of “you thought that was good but here’s why it isn’t” example, the first half of the book focuses on the sort of false dichotomies that we have set up for ourselves (often with good intentions) to make ourselves feel like we’re making good choices for ourselves AND the planet.

This first half focuses on fashion, food choices (although not the choice to eat or not eat animal products, which is a glaring omission), cleaning products, cars, water, and buildings. The water chapter is especially fascinating, as she starts out telling the story of a group of people native to Brazil, which I assumed would be used to frame why plastic water bottles are bad. Instead, the purpose of their story is to point out how the process of creating those reusable aluminum water bottles is destroying their environment. Whoops.

The car chapter is especially interesting, as the author points out that the biggest problems with cars aren’t their fuel economy – the biggest problems are the energy that goes into making them and the energy that goes into laying roads for people to drive on. There isn’t enough time spent here on the realities that so many people cannot give up their cars due to being forced to live far from where they work in areas without public transportation; the author gives off the impression that the choice is either car or public transit but doesn’t spend a lot of time on the fact that public transit isn’t an option for a whole lot of people. I don’t think that was an intentional omission; I think it’s just not a topic she chose to spend much time on, and I do think the chapter suffers a bit for that.

After a (mostly) thorough discussion of the problems of these false dichotomies of green vs. not green (because the green version is often just as bad or nearly as bad, just in different ways), Ms. Pierre-Louis moves to a discussion of fuel. She properly eviscerates the absurd “clean coal” concept before taking on biofuel – questionable at best given the fact that a shift from food-producing crops to fuel-producing crops both hurts world food supplies AND is often quite inefficient – and other energy alternatives. It’s an interesting look, and while I am not an expert in environmental writing, she does provide what appears to be independent support for her observations.

Finally, she spends the last quarter of the book focusing on how she suggests we address this problem. The basic conclusion is that we shouldn’t be focusing our economy on GROWTH, because that requires us to produce more and consume more every year. Instead, she spends a lot of time on the ‘steady state economy’ concept – something I’ll definitely be researching. For her (and clearly many others), the economy should be in support of the environment – the environment should not just be another component of the economy. As the author points out “We’ve become so focused on the economic system that we’ve forgotten that it’s dependent on the planet.”

I liked this book, but it does have some issues. In the last, seemingly tacked-on chapter, she looks to a ‘happiness index’ instead of GDP as a measure of a nation. In theory this is an awesome idea, but my inital look at the current state of Gross National Happiness makes me extremely wary that it can be easily manipulated to support one view of what is a ‘good life’ over another. I realize that the author was likely forced to make a choice about what to focus on, but I think that given her strong talent for writing, she could have added another fifty pages, really focused on these proposed solutions, and still had a book that people could easily read and process. In spite of that I do recommend it, especially for the first 180 pages.

Monday

17

June 2013

0

COMMENTS

Unscientific America

Written by , Posted in Reviews

I should know better than to ever go into Powell’s without a firm agreement with myself that I will NOT buy any books that aren’t already on my Goodreads list. I mean, I’ve got 138 waiting for me – do I REALLY need to walk up and down the aisles of this massive indie bookstore, pulling off books that catch my eye?

Yes, yes I do. Unfortunately, I wish I hadn’t picked up this one.

unscientific

Subtitled “How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s book purports to explore why the lack of interest in or understanding of science is a threat to the U.S. While I appreciate the sentiment, there were a few negative things that really stood out to me as I read this book, resulting in a pretty low rating.

First, this book was published in 2009, and spends a good part discussing how scientists need to be better versed in how to discuss their findings and research with the media. Better communications training for all scientists is one of their main solutions to the problem referenced in the title, and overall it’s a good one. They point to Carl Sagan as a great scientist who the average person trusted and was interested in learning from; they also point out that he was essentially shunned by “serious” scientists. That’s a problem and needs to be fixed. However, one of the author’s biggest concerns is that we don’t have anyone like that these days.

Say what? Has he never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson? That man is amazing. He got The Daily Show to (for the day at least) fix their opening credits so the world spins the right way. He got James Cameron to FIX THE SKY when he released the anniversary print of Titanic. This is a man people know, a man who is trying to bridge the unnecessary gap between science and policy, and he’s not even mentioned in the book. That alone gives me pause.

Second, the book has a disturbing chapter called “The New Atheists” that seeks to vilify PZ Meyers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Now, I don’t know much about Meyers, and I know that Sam Harris seems to be EXTREMELY islamophobic, and Richard Dawkins seems to be quite misogynistic. However, those were the issues these authors had. They attempt to make the case that atheists like them, who suggest that religion today is incompatible with reason, are making the situation worse. I actually get the argument they are trying to make, but they make it so poorly that it’s a bit challenging to get on their side.

Additionally, while I see they have a larger goal in mind, they also seem to be doing the ‘give both sides equal time” thing they eviscerate just a few chapters earlier when discussing climate change. As an atheist (of the ‘there’s no evidence for a diving being now but if you gave me some obviously I’d change my mind’ variety) I am clearly more prone to sensitivity around discussions of this nature, so it is possible that I am either misreading that section or just disagree, but either way it left me with a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Finally, while the title was clear enough to me that this was about the specific problem of science literacy in America, the nationalist undertones were ever-present and unsettling. I’d like to see the discussion about why it’s important for people to understand science and find it interesting from a policy perspective without ending the chapter with “BECAUSE AMERICA MUST BE NUMBER ONE!!!!1!1!!” I take issue with the U.S. not fostering financial support around issues like climate change, but not because we are the best yay U.S.A.! There seem to be constant appeals to that competitive, egotistical spirit in a lot of the promotion of the STEM areas (science, technology, engineering and math), often to the detriment of the humanities, which ironically these authors correctly point out are a necessary part of even science education. A focus on why this is a problem in our country without the ‘because WIN’ argument would be refreshing.

I appreciate (to a degree) what these authors were going for, but I think they missed the mark. The book was certainly an easy read (and very short, and only 130 pages of text with an additional 100 or so pages of references), and well written, but the arguments left me wanting something better.

Sunday

19

May 2013

0

COMMENTS

Paleofantasy

Written by , Posted in Reviews

“A simpler life with more exercise, fewer processed foods, and closer contact with our children may well be good for us. But we shouldn’t seek to live that way because we think it emulates our ancestors.” – Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy

There are a lot of different diets out there, some couched as providing quick weight loss, others purporting to be full-on lifestyles. We’re likely all familiar with South Beach and Atkins, as well as some of the old-school fixes (cabbage soup, cayenne lemonade ‘cleanse’). But one that’s gotten a lot of coverage lately is the Paleo or caveman lifestyle. The basic foundation of these recent movements is that we haven’t evolved for this life (eating dairy, sitting at a desk, consuming refined grains), so we need to adjust our diet to get back to the time when we were best matched to our environment: the Paleolithic era.

I try to reserve judgment of people if they are not hurting others. If what you choose to do works – either because of placebo effect or otherwise – then yay for you! I’m not, however, a fan of people promoting certain actions for reasons that can’t be supported with facts. If I tell you that a car will go forward when you step on the gas pedal, I’m correct; if I tell you it goes forward if you step on the gas pedal because of magical fairy dust in the trunk, I’m wrong. Even if the outcome – you trusting me that pushing on the pedal will make the car go – will be the same, the supporting evidence matters to me.

Paleofantasy

That’s why I found this book to be SO fascinating. Dr. Zuk is interested in exploring the claims many people seem to be making about what evolution can tell us about how we should be living our lives. It was a bit of a challenging read, but certainly manaegable if you have a basic understanding of biology. She’s great at explaining things, although there were definitely areas that I had to re-read twice.

The purpose of the book is to explore in detail the oft-cited claims that we haven’t evolved for this life we’re living. She spends time building her case by talking about evolution of other species – including a really fascinating discussion of how quickly some crickets evolved to stop chirping because the chirps attracted some deadly flies – before addressing some of the main claims those who promote a Paleo lifestyle make. She tackles the dairy argument by providing evidence of how many of us HAVE evolved to process dairy (and why!). She looks at the caveman exercise model by pointing out that while the need for activity itself is supported, the idea that it needs to mimic chasing a mammoth is unsupported. She even takes aim at the “agriculture changed everything for the worse” argument. It’s fascinating and different from what seems to be pushed on a regular basis by many people who are promoting a specific agenda.

She also examines non-diet evolutionary biology issues, some of which she sees having support (attachment parents will like that part of the book) and some she does not (people who think women evolved to be monogamous and men did not may want to skip chapter seven). Those sections are especially interesting because those arguments – especially the ones around men and women evolving to be better suited to performing certain tasks – find their ways into daily life. Even political arguments from some conservatives (who ironically often don’t believe in evolution) are often based in this misunderstanding of how we have evolved.

My biggest take-away from reading this book is that there is not ‘perfect’ time that we’re best suited for, and evolution can happen much quicker (relatively speaking) than some Paleo proponents suggest. Dr. Zuk is NOT suggesting that, for example, eating fewer processed foods, or eliminating dairy, is bad; she’s just saying that the evidence for why it might be good to eat more whole foods or be more active is not necessarily found in how we lived 15,000 years ago.

I’d recommend this book to anyone who is interested in science, evidence, reason, and biology.

Tuesday

5

March 2013

0

COMMENTS

Dead Men Do Tell Tales

Written by , Posted in Reviews

I earn my living, in part, by planning for what to do when a whole lot of people die all at once. Yes, that is actually a real job, and hopefully one that exists in your city or state. There are a lot of people around the country who do what I do, and earlier this year I attended a conference of such folks. I chose to read this book during that conference; it seemed fitting.

Dead men

Dead Men Do Tell Tales is a fascinating, detailed book by Dr. William Maples, an amazingly accomplished forensic anthropologist. You may be familiar with that field if you watch “Bones,” although as is usually the case, what you see on screen doesn’t closely match reality. A forensic anthropologist is trained in examining human remains to learn more about the decedent. They can tell if bones belonged to a woman or man, approximate age, and explain wounds. It’s very detail-oriented work, at times taking months or years when the identity is unknown (not the 45 minutes plus commercials Emily Deschanel might suggest).

In his book from the 90s, Dr. Maples takes the reader through many different cases he’s participated in over the years. Some involve people you’ve never heard of, and some are so famous it would be understandable if you didn’t quite believe what you were reading. Dr. Maples was, no joke, part of the small team that confirmed the identity of the bones of the murdered last Tsars of Russia. He put to rest the idea that President Taylor was killed by arsenic poisoning. He also helped convict murderers whose crimes were devastating but whose names you and I might not recognize.

As evidenced by my line of work, I find this to be an extremely interesting topic. I’ve read Mary Roach’s Stiff, as well as a couple of other books about the lives of medical examiners. If nothing else is on TV, I’ll likely leave it tuned to Dr. G. Medical Examiner or some other disease-related show on TLC or Discovery. I say all of that in service of the recognition that this type of writing is just not for everyone.

It is EXTREMELY graphic. Not to shock, but to explain. How else can he express to you how he was able to identify a murder weapon than to explain how he matched it to the wounds to the victim’s bones? Without the detail, it would be a very short book, with each chapter consisting of “so I did my work and concluded X.” His way of writing is so much better – it makes sense, and gives the reader a real insight into how forensic anthropology works.

If you enjoy history, or true crime stories, or science, and are not easily sickened by detailed descriptions of human remains, I think you’ll really enjoy this book. The only reason I gave it four stars is because at times the non-forensic writing (the set-up to the crime, or background) is a bit too flowery for my tastes. I appreciate creative turns of phrase, and I don’t doubt that the authors really do write this way, but at times it felt a little like one of them just got a new thesaurus. Additionally, while it suits the structure of the book, each chapter feels like its own independent essay; he re-explains some things as though the reader hadn’t just learned about them 50 pages prior.

But those are minimal complaints. It’s a great book.